Member Info for dickupham

Judging by his many 1 to 5 word posts conveying nothing of value, Scott240 shows classic signs of having been born without a functioning cerebrum. Most unfortunate. He deserves our sympathy. What piece is it he finds "interesting"? To me, the only thing that is relevant is the latest situation which, in relation to the FPSO vessel (Western Isles), has been set out in 2 RNSs of : 17 Nov 2023 and 2 Sept 2024

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/JOG/fpso-acquisition-6o2r28fvm4wj4hm.html

No progress (towards FDP approval) could have been made without the JV's full control of the FPSO vessel. Had anything significant changed in relation to the FPSO vessel, an appropriate announcement would have been required.

The "filter" facility has been used to good effect.

I might have misinterpreted what has most recently been stated by Starmer, along the lines of the Gov likely approval of the Rosebank project because it is an existing licence (which I have believed throughout that Buchan is too, along with J2, & the Licence P2170 assets). Suddenly nuclear (in the form of SMRs) appears to have become "flavour of the day". All this has to be positive for JOG and its JV partners.

It shows the level of farce (and dishonesty) to which the situation has descended (driven by Miliband's and the eco-freaks' zealotry) that Starmer should suddenly talk of granting approval to Rosebank, when it has been ordered by the Supreme Court that the already granted EIA approval should be resubmitted to the Regulator (the NSTA), which this time should take into account scope 3 emissions. I thought these quangos were supposed to act independently of Government?

Seems possible to me that legal advice has been sought and this is along the lines the Govt's liability to UKCS oil & gas cos for the money they've sunk into existing licences (were they now to be told the projects must be stopped and everything must be made good) would be unaffordable.

Things could move very quickly for companies like JOG if the Govt really has decided it's not a good idea to end production from the North Sea, not least because it would be incredibly stupid and cost a fortune to do so.

dyor

Contd........

"There is no harm in quantifying the impact of Scope 3 emissions, as their effect is expected to be negligible. As to emissions in the production process we are confident that the right approach is to minimise those and to eliminate the bulk of the transportation emissions by producing oil and gas in our own backyard.

However, we will have to wait and see how government intends to tax the industry in the longer term, and we hope for a balance between ensuring a fair return for investors and maximising government revenues. It is probably true to say that the current fiscal regime is demonstrating exactly how the Laffer curve works in practice, we are on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, and in fact government revenues will rise with a more attractive fiscal regime. We are confident that sense will prevail, and the industry will have a bright future in the UK. But we will all have to wait for the outcome of these consultations before any company commits to a new development project of scale and we are optimistic that Ping will move forward with its North Sea development portfolio once the mists have cleared in Spring.

However, despite all the gloom we see great opportunity in the UK. The pendulum always swings too far and this time taxes have gone too high, and the hurdles development projects have to clear have become too many. Things will change and there is hope that the companies that stick by the UK will eventually prosper."

The remaining uncertainty is what Reeves is planning as a successor to the EPL in 2030. The OEUK (the industry's representative body - hopeless to date but might improve) should tell her to "go do one" as she'll be nowhere to be seen by then. In any event there's no basis for charging a higher rate than was charged before Sunak's dishonest heist in 2022. If she wants to avoid surprises, fine. But is has to work both ways. Agree an honestly calculated "normal" price for Brent and Natural Gas - say $80 for BC and 100p for NBP. HMRC can have 78% of all profits made as a result of higher than normal prices. HMRC allows c/fwd losses equal to 78% of profits lower because of BC and NBP prices falling below the norm. Companies to be able to choose whether oil or gas prices should be the measure, based on a full year's trading. Sunak's and Hunt's dishonesty resulted in all UKCS companies paying 75%+ (rising to 78%+) tax for 8 years, when BC only exceeded an honestly calculated "normal" price for about 8 months and NBP for about 14 months. Pure and simple theft. They disgust me, as do Labour's incompetent, lying, Marxist cretins.

Apart from that they're ok.

jmofwiw - dyor. It's unsafe to assume that logic or honesty will prevail - we're not dealing with anyone either honest or clever here and that means danger. Zealotry is a poison. But Labour needs growth and that won't come with net zero. It won't come with anything actually. Rachel from accounts has already shot the rainmakers

Excellent post Cyril!!

I read today's judgment as good news for the same reasons you outline.

It's worth reading again what Orcadian's Chairman and CEO stated in December. They apply simple logic to the Scope 3 admissions nonsense which, were the NSTA to oppose it (the NSTA now assumed to be another of Miliband's mouthpieces) would an admission to them being cretins of the highest order.

" .... the Finch ruling does not raise concerns for us. Quantifying the impact of Scope 3 emissions is a reasonable step, as their effect is expected to be negligible. As an example, the Rosebank field will produce about 300 MMbbl of oil, that when combusted will produce about 134 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which will increase the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere by just under 0.02 parts per million, assuming nature absorbs nothing – a very unlikely assumption given about half of the carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuels since the industrial revolution has been so absorbed. Using the IPCC central estimate for the impact on global temperatures of a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration – 3ºC – that increase in carbon dioxide concentration could increase global temperature by less than two ten thousandths of a degree, far below the level that any creature could perceive.

This is why action on climate change needs global agreement on actions to reduce demand for fossil fuel energy. Constraining supply can only impact demand by increasing the price of energy; increasing the price of energy will undermine support for any climate action. So, politicians and engineers alike need to focus on delivering low-carbon energy for the lowest cost possible. That is why our Earlham project is so important. It will deliver low to no carbon energy at an affordable cost and on a dispatchable basis. We hope to learn from that project so that we can implement repeat projects at lower costs.

Nevertheless, because of the Finch ruling both Shell’s Jackdaw project and Equinor’s Rosebank project will have to be re-approved, and the government will have to re-issue guidance on how EIA documents are prepared.

The industry awaits that guidance which is expected in the Spring. However, the industry is also awaiting guidance on the successor fiscal regime from 2030 onwards. From FDP approval to first oil is typically at least three years, the earliest we might see a new project FDP approved is late 2025 or 2026. What that means is that by far the bulk of the revenue from any new project of substance will be taxed under the successor regime. So, operators’ hands are tied, they need regulatory clarity, and they need fiscal clarity".

...........tbc

I see that Lord Ericht is an expert in climate science. Like so many others (a big % of Britain's dim-witted population just for starters) he's been brainwashed into believing the (doctored) very modest increase in the earth's average temperature over the last 40 years or so is entirely caused by anthropological (manmade) climate change ("MMCC"). Fossil fuels are to blame. Plus Nitrus Oxide (N2O - used to produce fertilizers used in farming). Mustn't forget cow.farts too, ie methane; (CH4) about 0.00018% of the earth's atmosphere; N2O is 0.00003%; CO2 is a massive 0.04%. All three

are "toxic" and must be banned. Never mind that life wouldn't exist but for CO2. Does water vapour come into it anywhere (ie clouds)? Or natural forces, eg volcanos, or variations in the frequency and intensity of solar radiation hitting the planet, producing changes in climate that are different and additional to those from MMCC?

Records (un-doctored ones) show there has been no increase in hurricanes, droughts or other destructive meteorological events over the last 80 years (as far back as records go). But now each and every one is the result of MMCC. Sensation-seeking journalists traverses the globe, "bigging up" each event, flying business and staying in 5* hotels in nearby tropical isles - the Caribbean is much favoured territory; last year's hurricane in Jamaica was a godsend. Every extreme weather event is the result of MMCC. The recent fires in LA?? "MMCC, silly!! Try well-heeled celebrities building palaces made of wood in the forests above Hollywood, when it's an established fact everything gets tinder dry and fires have broken out naturally since the beginning of time. There's even a song about it ("it never rains in S California" - correct)Then gasps of horror when the inevitable happens. MMCC is of course the cause. Talk about dim. At least one arsonist was caught in action, but arson (of course) wasn't the cause of fires that had 5 different seats, some miles apart.

If nothing else, watch between 16 mins 40 secs to 21 mins of this linked video. It's 10 years old but nothing has changed except the level of zealotry has increased.

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+global+warming&mid=81584D0801601D7DE0D581584D0801601D7DE0D5&mcid=40844908B4D947AE96FDE897CC36F8A5&FORM=VIRE

From 21 to 40 mins, real data is presented that shows the absurdity of the energy route that's been chosen for us by our political masters who are supposed to be our servants.

Ref today's judgment, the judges have wimped out and thrown it back to the politicians. Neither Reeves nor Miliband is telling the truth. God knows where the NSTA stands - a foot in both camps. What a mess. When something is premised on lies and it passes into law what else can anyone expect?

Money will determine the eventual outcome. Sense will prevail. The skill lies in staying alive for long enough to see it!

dyor

Cox explained that his firm “were involved in some processes” when he took over, however, these did not pan out.

Serica’s Norwegian U-turn

Rhum

The Rhum field

Although the firm hasn’t ruled out ever entering the Norwegian market, it’s current outlook is that it “looks quite difficult to do something that’s value accretive” within the country.

Norway was seen as a natural next step for UK operators on the build-up to the Labour government’s first budget as the UK planned to up its headline rate of tax to that of its neighbour while removing investment allowances that were once afforded under the EPL.

Norway has historically had a higher rate of tax than the UK, however, its fiscal regime allows for investment allowances that incentivise operators to spend on further activity.

However, the retention of the windfall tax’s first-year capital allowances created an opportunity for Serica.

As a well-known independent UK player, Serica is becoming a port of call for those looking to sell assets in the North Sea, Cox explained.

“Any anybody that’s got anything to sell is probably going to approach us, and so we know we know pretty much about everything that’s out there.”

More drilling to come from Serica in the UK North Sea

The Triton FPSO will connect to Serica Energy's Belinda field© Supplied by Dana Petroleum

The Triton FPSO in the Central North Sea.

Something that is making the UK appealing for Serica at the moment is that it has ways to “shelter” itself from the high rate of tax.

“The situation we’re in right now is our oily assets have historical tax losses, so they’re paying hardly anything in the way of tax,” he said.

“Our gas assets are fully tax paying at the moment and even though we’re a 50/50 split, more or less, for oil and gas, the oil is far more valuable to us at the moment and so that brings it into stark focus that the tax makes a big difference.”

In November, Cox told shareholders that his firm welcomed news from the budget which offered “much needed clarity over future investment allowances” that benefited some of its assets.

Because of the capital allowance retention, Serica is “one of the few active drillers in the in the UK, North Sea at the moment,” commented Cox.

The firm is currently halfway through a five well drilling campaign at its joint venture Triton project and Cox forecasts further drilling over the next two years.

“The next thing that you’re going to see from us is probably going to be a drilling campaign around Bruce, Keith and Rhum,” he added.

“Those are gas assets that don’t have a tax shelter, but they can still work because we’ve got the capital allowances.”

He added the caveat that “we don’t know exactly which wells we’re going to drill yet or exactly when it’s going to happen,” but he said those projects will happen.

Serica Energy (AIM: SQZ) boss Chris Cox aims to buy up aging UK assets as “the fiscal regime in the North Sea can’t really get any worse than it is right now.”

The Serica chief executive explained how his firm has changed its attitude towards the UK as it laid out plans to explore merger and acquisition (M&A) deals in the North Sea.

“The UK, we think, holds some opportunity,” Cox told Energy Voice.

“Part of the reason there’s an opportunity is that it’s not very attractive for very many people.”

The firm, which was once looking to pick up assets in Norway, now sees an opportunity to pick up bargains as investors abandon the basin.

“There are people that want to exit, there are people that want to reduce their exposure to the North Sea, there are folks that are looking to partner,” he added.

Unrealistic Norwegian prices and optimism for UK assets

In recent months, UK oil and gas players have attempted to shield themselves from the country’s steep 78% tax rate.

US operator Apache revealed plans to exit the basin by 2030, the UK’s largest producer, Harbour Energy (LON:HBR), diversified its portfolio through the $11.2billion acquisition of German rival Wintershall Dea and London-based supermajor Shell (LON:SHEL) combined its assets with Norwegian state-owned firm Equinor.

It is for this reason, that Serica is looking to its tried-and-true method of picking up ageing assets and extracting additional value from them.

As other firms attempt to hide from the Energy Profits Levy (EPL), or windfall tax, Cox sees a glimmer of hope for the UK, although he admitted: “I don’t have a crystal ball and I might be wrong”.

He commented: “My view is, the fiscal regime in the North Sea can’t really get any worse than it is right now and so if you think whatever comes after the EPL is going to be better than the EPL, then the value of people’s assets is going to go up over time rather than down.”

Cox added “I quite like the idea of buying at the bottom of a cycle” and, he believes, that the UK “might be at the bottom of the cycle right now,” prompting a renewed interest in the country.

This is a change of pace from Serica’s previous sentiment around UK investment.

Ahead of the UK’s autumn budget, CFO Martin Copeland told Energy Voice that the firm was looking to acquire assets in Norway.

However, since Cox was named CEO in May, attitudes towards the UK have shifted, not in small part due to the attention others have shown the country’s Nordic cousin.

“Lots of people are interested in assets in Norway and as a consequence, every M&A process is competitive in Norway,” Cox added.

“We looked at a few things in Norway after I joined, and my view is the people who have stuff to sell in Norway have unrealistic expectations of what they might get for their assets.”

Surety

It seems clear from SQZ's CEO's presentation this morning that nothing is going to happen (re M&A in the UKCS) until there's clarity on the three issues this incompetent government leaves hanging over the industry as it dithers. Not a single one of the front bench knows or understands ANYTHING about business or the markets. The one thing the market hates above all else is uncertainty and this lot have caused it in spades for at least the last 18 months.

Responding to yours of 15.05hrs, Surety.

Before I start, I can't work out why I stated my DCF projections showed the Buchan project as a whole has a NPV10 of $1.2m (my post 09 Jan @ 08.39hrs). I was concentrating on the value of JOG's 20% interest, but it doesn't excuse my error. The last time I did projections to get to an approximation of NPV10 of the project as a whole was when Hunt was chancellor and the 29% additional investment relief was available. Plus there was no talk of delaying the project (thereby reducing the value by the effects of discounting). I just don't know why I wrote down $1.2bn or where it came from - I wasn't trying to mislead anyone. Put it down to having bigger fish to fry. Regardless, I doubt very much the numbers would put off NEO and SQZ - esp with NEO having found a home for a FPSO vessel that cost $2bn in 2017 (alternative use scrap??). The numbers didn't make sense anyway, given I went on to say JOG (using the assumptions I outlined) had an NPV10 of $200m (I rounded it down to this approximate number). JOG's individual share of overall project value was always going to be significantly higher than 20% because: a) it doesn't have any capex; b) it has tax losses of its own that can be relieved at 40% as soon as production is underway and: c) it collects $20m from NEO ($12.5m) and SQZ ($7.5m) on FDP approval. $200m as a % of $1.2m is less than 17%.

So, what would SQZ gain from buying JOG before the FDP is approved? The same applies to NEO, which presently owns 50% to SQZ's 30%?

Using the assumptions I outlined, the discounted value (ie NPV10) of the GBA project as a whole is $630m (not $1.2m). JOG's fully carried 20%, inc the $20m due from its two JV partners on FDA approval, plus the value of its accumulated tax losses, results in a net worth to JOG of $230m.

Were SQZ to acquire JOG (the whole company) it would increase its share in the JV from 30% to 50%. Its share of capex would remain at 37.5% vs 62.5% to be paid by NEO. SQZ would avoid the need to pay $7.5m (to JOG) on FDP approval. It would be entitled to receive $12.5m from NEO on FDP approval. SQZ would acquire whatever assets JOG owned at the date of sale, inc £70m of tax losses worth $28m in cash - and JOG's cash balances.

20% of total NPV10 of $630m (using numbers and assumptions that are at best broad estimates outside both my and anyone else's control because they involve the future) amounts to $126m. Add the FDP approval monies ($20m). Add the tax losses (cash value) $35m). Total: $181m or £145m = £4 per share.

If my numbers are anywhere in the ballpark that would be below JOG's minimum worth. Everything is lined up to go, JV partners' agreement in place and fully funded from the outset. Mood in the sector is changing as reality unfolds. Due diligence will have underestimated resources.

The assumptions I've made and numbers I've used might be nowhere near the mark. They're for debating purposes only.

DYOR

........keep up, Parge........at the present burn rate JOG has enough cash to keep it going for 8 years.........not that it will come to this.........

You've lost me with your ref to 4 Feb, Surety.

SQZ has a trading update next week (21 January), in which the Company will provide (production) guidance for 2025. There will be a live presentation on the Investor Meet Company platform on the day of the trading and operations update at 0900 GMT

https://www.investormeetcompany.com/serica-energy-plc/register-investor. https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SQZ/update-on-production-53psmc3hxlb59pg.html

I am hoping for average forecast production in excess of 50kboepd for 2025, but this might be a bit too ambitious. We shall see. Regardless, SQZ looks significantly undervalued to me with an expected dividend this year of 23p (c.15%), significant free cash flow generation despite much reduced production volumes as a result of technical problems with the Triton FPSO hub and armed to the hilt with b/fwd tax losses that can be offset against RFCT (but not EPL) profits, thus mitigating (for several years) the effects of the punitive and unjustifiable EPL of 38% on so-called "extraordinary" profits.

JOG also looks significantly undervalued - if the project proceeds despite the best efforts of dim-witted and dishonest politicians to prevent it. If the Buchan project doesn't get PDP approval, nothing will. Sense has to prevail.

As some on here will know, I put together DCF projections (I only went as far forward as 2034) using conservative assumptions, to get to JOG's NPV10 (10% discount for risk is the industry norm) which values JOG's share of the Buchan project at $223m (£178m). There are 32.67m shares out and a further 3.76m conditional options, most with an average exercise price of around £2 per share, so about £5 a share looks to be in the ballpark. Whether that will emerge is another matter because markets don’t do value – they do price, which is determined by supply and demand. JOG now has a v poor share register – full of two-bit day traders. Every SP rise is sold into by people whose only aim is to make a quick buck. Then rinse and repeat. It's a long way back to sanity.

I’m interested in long term value - eventual investment yield. But my thoughts involve assumptions about the future. The best anyone can do is try to get to a number that allows investment yield to be calculated. I’m not going to go into the theories of investing here – the best advice is probably to read Warren Buffet’s many sayings about investing, although I note Berkshire Hathaway doesn’t appear on JOG’s share register.

Were JOG to retain its 20% in the GBA and decide just to sit back and receive its 20% share of production, it would generate (net of tax) earnings of something like $70m per annum (c.£56m) per my DCF projections. This is using present estimates of Brent ppb, G&A ppb and a tax rate of 40%. Apply an appropriate p/e - try (say) 5.

I’ll comment on the possibility of SQZ buying JOG in another post – maybe tomorrow if I’m feeling ok. I have one more to deliver tonight.

dyor

"Petrol vs Electric Cars - Which is Better?"................

Petrol........................until a carbon tax is introduced which increases the cost of petrol (or diesel) to £2 a litre and road fund licences to about £750 a year

I respect your views, Megla but I'd use "incompetence" instead of "irony". The latter implies a level of understanding that doesn't exist.

Https://rockflow.com/about/meet-the-team/tom-gunningham/

I've explained why I AGREE............

Your comments are appreciated, JS but I make no recommendations. I just set out things as I see them - no more and no less.

The 'market' seems to give JOG about a 1 in 8 chance of getting Buchan on the road - way too low in Dan Slater's opinion and also in mine.

The big money to be made in investing is when the market gets a stock wrong. Slater uses that exact word - he thinks JOG's price is plain wrong. I've explained why I disagree but it doesn't seem to have deterred the sellers (probably mostly johnny come latelys who are students of short term price movements and herd behaviour). Might take a few more months but we're used to being patient. I often think back to 2019 (I think) and a Capital Markets Day in London JOG put on. Over lunch I spent half an hour chatting to a character called Tom Gunningham to whom AB had introduced me. We discussed any number of issues. Rarely - even in the accounting profession - have I come across anyone who has a better understanding of discounted cash flow modelling than he does. He explained many things to me I hadn't previously appreciated but the point of me raising the subject here is the answer I gave to "how certain is it that Buchan (which was relatively new to JOG at that time) will progress commercially". Without hesitation he responded: "don't fret about that; it will go into production, its just a question of when. Oil of that quality 33° API in one of the best post code in the basin) won't stay below ground for long".

We just have to hope the projected returns will be good enough for NEO and that Labour's imbeciles will back off when they fully realise the fix they're in. Britain can't afford Miliband's economically catastrophic virtue signalling and this seems to be increasingly understood by those expected to sign the cheques. The emperor is naked and it's time to admit it. The interesting question is: will Miliband go before Reeves?

dyor

I wasn't having a dig at you for the sake of it. Djm.

On Tuesday, Dan Slater of Zeus Capital, who's not noted for being OTT despite the fact Zeus is JOG's house broker, explained in a well-constructed research note why a price of 525p is fair to apply to JOG's shares. You then decided to tell everyone 180p min was the right price: “based on the 2 discover(ies) in there (sic) portfolio if development happens think over the lifetime would reach net $600 to $800m net to JOG”). I’ve done my best to translate what you wrote into understandable language but, to be frank, I don’t see a Nobel Prize in Literature winging its way to you any time soon Djm.

Dan Slater uses NAV as his means of reaching fair value. Another way to get to fair value is to use discounted (forward) cash flow projections to arrive at what is termed “Net Present Value” (NPV). Certain assumptions about the future have to be made to get to NPV(see below). Am I qualified to produce something that might be worth considering seriously? Others on this blog who know of my professional background would (I hope) say I am. Conversely, you don’t say what you do (or did) for a living that enables you to explain why “$600 to $800 net to JOG” either arises, or converts to a minimum of 180p per share.

In an effort to provide an alternative valuation of the Buchan project, for comparison with Dan Slater’s, I have prepared discounted cash flow projections forward to 2034, based on the following principal assumptions and used these to discount net revenue back to present value (NPV10):

BC price $75 throughout

Total production: 35kboepd from 1 Jan 2028 for 330 days pa

G&A costs $25pb throughout

EPL 38% & RFCT 40% through to end of 2029.

100% CAs available on CAPEX spend by NEO and SQZ, used against profits generated by Buchan

10% standard industry discount rate for risk applied throughout

No further discount for risk or cost of money

No further capex for 7 yrs after first oil (I have only projected cash flows fwd to end of 2034, as there’s no point adding progressively lower net cash generated as the discount rate increases).

On the above basis, NPV10 of the Buchan project is $1.2bn. JOG’s share of this is $200m. I have not included anything for the J2 or Verbier discoveries, nor have I attributed any value to Cortina, Verbier Deep or Wengen (more than 200m prospective resources in total).

A $200m Buchan NPV10 converts to $6.13 p/s (490p). Adding Verbier and J2 at Slater’s valuation gets me to 557p. Slater says 525p using his way.

We all know the risks around Miliband’s insanity.

All imo

dyor

I'd offer you space under the duvee I'm snuggling under trying to stay warm, NK, but Devon's probably a bit far for you to travel and it would probably get tongue's wagging anyway. My dog wouldn't be that happy about losing his slot either. I would never do anything to upset him as he's always100% behind me and never sulks. Want proof that your dog wins hands down in a contest between wives and dogs? Lock both in an understairs cupboard, then let them out after half an hour. Who's the one who'll give you a big sloppy lick..................

Https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live

"This should be trading at 180p minimum"............

..........why 180p?

Offshore Energy:

"Selecting the Greater Buchan Area (GBA) development solution and hand-picking the FPSO Western Isles for the project enabled the Buchan redevelopment, which is said to be the third largest pre-development field on the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS), to move forward.

While the FPSO is owned by Dana Petroleum (operator, 76.9188%) and NEO (23.0812%), the Buchan joint venture partners, consisting of NEO Energy (50%, operator), Serica Energy (30%), and Jersey Oil & Gas (JOG) (20%), committed to acquire the interest not currently owned by NEO, upon the approval of the Buchan field development plan (FDP).

However, the GBA partners will be responsible for the costs of storing the vessel from the handover date, anticipated to be in the second half of 2024, since the unit was slated to come off-station as part of the planned cessation of production of the Western Isles fields around that time.

Upon handover to NEO, a work program will prepare the FPSO for redeployment on Buchan. Following the receipt of fiscal clarity and subject to FDP approval, major contract awards and capital commitments for the project are anticipated in 2025.

The planned activities, covering the installation of water injection booster pumps, produced water injection modifications, and preparation of the vessel for future electrification, are expected to be completed by early 2026, enabling the unit to be deployed at the field location and hooked up for the recently revised start-up of production in late 2027.

Previously, first oil was slated for late 2026 with peak production rates of around 35,000 barrels per day. Located in the Central North Sea, the GBA project covers blocks that contain the Buchan oil field and J2 oil discovery along with the P2170 license blocks 20/5b and 21/1d, which include the Verbier oil discovery and other exploration prospects"..........